A. Syllogism
P1) If the government does not fund anti-lead programs, there is a greater chance of people getting lead-poisoning.
P2) The government is not funding anti-lead programs.
C) There is a greater chance of people getting lead-poisoning.
B. Description
The argument was found online from The New York Times in the Op-Ed section titled America is Flint. Nicholas Kristof, the author, discussed the issue of the Flint water crisis. In Flint, Michigan, water was contaminated. Lead from pipes leaked into the city’s water source causing lead poisoning. Many government officials were aware of the situation before it became a crisis causing many ethical and political issues.
Although the article was based off the Flint water crisis, it comments …show more content…
By the author giving examples of other lead poisoning situations, it made the reader aware that this is impacting many parts of America. Furthermore, the examples of the health implications is what made the issue an issue. If I read this article and was unaware what lead could do to my health, I would have a difficult time agreeing with his argument. There are no blunders and fallacies. However, there are a few changes to the argument to strengthen it.
One of the premises was if the government does not fund anti-lead programs, there is a greater chance of people getting lead-poisoning. As discussed earlier, Kristof notes of cases of lead poisoning. However, he only mentioned once throughout the argument the cutting of programs. If the author would have elaborated on why cuts occurred, the reader would have a better understanding of the impact. One thing the author could have done was compare the number of lead-poisoning cases before and after the budget cuts. If the number of cases decreased before the cuts, it would have been beneficial to add to the …show more content…
When citing the percentages of children tested for elevated levels of lead, he got data from the Center of Disease Control and Prevention. However, he stated he calculated most of these numbers. He then commented on the data collected and said, “in any case data collection is poor . . . take comparisons with a grain of salt” (Kristof). This hinders the strength of the argument. Many questioned aroused when reading this quote. What are the chances of a miscalculation? If the data collection is poor, why should I agree with your argument? Simply excluding those statements would have not caused me to doubt his
P1) If the government does not fund anti-lead programs, there is a greater chance of people getting lead-poisoning.
P2) The government is not funding anti-lead programs.
C) There is a greater chance of people getting lead-poisoning.
B. Description
The argument was found online from The New York Times in the Op-Ed section titled America is Flint. Nicholas Kristof, the author, discussed the issue of the Flint water crisis. In Flint, Michigan, water was contaminated. Lead from pipes leaked into the city’s water source causing lead poisoning. Many government officials were aware of the situation before it became a crisis causing many ethical and political issues.
Although the article was based off the Flint water crisis, it comments …show more content…
By the author giving examples of other lead poisoning situations, it made the reader aware that this is impacting many parts of America. Furthermore, the examples of the health implications is what made the issue an issue. If I read this article and was unaware what lead could do to my health, I would have a difficult time agreeing with his argument. There are no blunders and fallacies. However, there are a few changes to the argument to strengthen it.
One of the premises was if the government does not fund anti-lead programs, there is a greater chance of people getting lead-poisoning. As discussed earlier, Kristof notes of cases of lead poisoning. However, he only mentioned once throughout the argument the cutting of programs. If the author would have elaborated on why cuts occurred, the reader would have a better understanding of the impact. One thing the author could have done was compare the number of lead-poisoning cases before and after the budget cuts. If the number of cases decreased before the cuts, it would have been beneficial to add to the …show more content…
When citing the percentages of children tested for elevated levels of lead, he got data from the Center of Disease Control and Prevention. However, he stated he calculated most of these numbers. He then commented on the data collected and said, “in any case data collection is poor . . . take comparisons with a grain of salt” (Kristof). This hinders the strength of the argument. Many questioned aroused when reading this quote. What are the chances of a miscalculation? If the data collection is poor, why should I agree with your argument? Simply excluding those statements would have not caused me to doubt his